sparky I think that you are making the same mistake that the ifa is making- pretending that its members are field archaeologists. They don’t work in the field, almost not a one. Possibly you are refereeing to the directors of some unit and the management of the units contracts. If that’s so then they should belong to a institute of archaeological unit directors. Vulpes do you work in the field? who were you recommending for membership?
The cba tried to contain a profession around the concept of field archaeology. It was the word professional archaeologist that they wanted to give authority to a myriad of civil service positions most notably county archaeologists, eh and museum services. The problem though is that these are not day in day out digging positions. And that’s the problem with the ifa it wants to be the association for all field work but theres no money for an association from the diggers, well not one that wants to base itself in a university. These also very little reason for a digger to be a member as there is no career for brandishing a trowel in hand.
And theres more,
Its always made me laugh that English heritage had to have science officers. That tells you everything that you need to know about eh and this relates to the production of thousands of archaeology graduates a year with degrees that have nothing to do with field archaeology and where the vast majority have no intention of ever undertaking fieldwork. All those universities are a joke and the use of a BA qualification is at the heart of the matter. Over the last decade or so the BA graduate has replaced the previous manpower service rejects. Theres very little difference. The charter system seems to need degree fodder and there are whole arts faculties waiting to justify their existence. So are the universities clamouring for chartered status for the ifa. Or rather is the ifa going to start accrediting the courses that are appropriate for membership of the ifa. I suspect that any arts faclty subject will be appropriate.
The cba tried to contain a profession around the concept of field archaeology. It was the word professional archaeologist that they wanted to give authority to a myriad of civil service positions most notably county archaeologists, eh and museum services. The problem though is that these are not day in day out digging positions. And that’s the problem with the ifa it wants to be the association for all field work but theres no money for an association from the diggers, well not one that wants to base itself in a university. These also very little reason for a digger to be a member as there is no career for brandishing a trowel in hand.
And theres more,
Its always made me laugh that English heritage had to have science officers. That tells you everything that you need to know about eh and this relates to the production of thousands of archaeology graduates a year with degrees that have nothing to do with field archaeology and where the vast majority have no intention of ever undertaking fieldwork. All those universities are a joke and the use of a BA qualification is at the heart of the matter. Over the last decade or so the BA graduate has replaced the previous manpower service rejects. Theres very little difference. The charter system seems to need degree fodder and there are whole arts faculties waiting to justify their existence. So are the universities clamouring for chartered status for the ifa. Or rather is the ifa going to start accrediting the courses that are appropriate for membership of the ifa. I suspect that any arts faclty subject will be appropriate.
Reason: your past is my past